Whether the central farmland improvement association's guarantee of the payment of rent for non-party companies constitutes a contract to be borne by the association in addition to the budget under Article 23 subparagraph 8 of the Agricultural Community Modernization Promotion Act.

The guarantee of the rent for the equipment leased by the non-party company, which is the plaintiff, by the National Farmland Improvement Association, from the Korea Agricultural Promotion Corporation, shall not be deemed to fall under the conclusion of the contract that will be borne by the above association in addition to the budget stipulated in Article 23 subparagraph 8 of the Rural Community Modernization Promotion Act. Therefore, in making the guarantee, it is not necessary to

Article 23 of the Agricultural Community Modernization Promotion Act

Korea Agriculture Promotion Corporation

Central Farmland Improvement Cooperatives

Chuncheon District Court of the first instance (76Gahap47)

Supreme Court Decision 76Gahap47 Delivered on May 12, 1975

1. Revocation of the original judgment;

2. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1,393,80 won with an annual interest rate of 5% from January 1, 1971 to the full payment.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

4. Paragraph 2 can be provisionally executed.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. In full view of Gap evidence Nos. 5-1, 2 (Cooperation for Full Payment of Claim Amount), Gap evidence Nos. 2 (Agricultural Machinery Lease Contract), Gap evidence Nos. 4 (Application for Extension of Use during Period), and Gap evidence Nos. 6 (Dismissal of Claim Nos. 6) which are presumed the authenticity of the entire document, the plaintiff cannot conclude the lease contract with the plaintiff to pay rent Nos. 189,420 on the same day from the same day to December 30 of the same year, and the lease contract amount to the non-party company Nos. 189,420, 307,507, 428, 400, 428, 408, 306, 308, 306, 408, 197, 198, 196, 196, 306, 306, 196, 408, 196, 306, 400.36, 18.

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the defendant is obliged to pay the above rent to the plaintiff as the guarantor of the non-party company.

2. The defendant attorney:

(A) The defendant's above guarantee act was invalid because it constitutes a contract that will be borne by the defendant association in addition to the budget and it was invalid without the above approval even though the approval of the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry was effective under the Agricultural Community Modernization Promotion Act. Thus, among testimony of the best witness of the court below, the part seems consistent with the above argument that the guarantee contract of this case constitutes the conclusion of the contract that will be borne by the defendant association in addition to the budget. However, there is no evidence to believe it in light of the following evidence. Rather, according to the above court below's decision Kim Yong-il's testimony and establishment without dispute, the defendant's purpose is to install and maintain farmland improvement facilities, maintain and manage the land improvement project and execute the farming village reservoir construction project as one of its business, and the above non-party company leased the above case from the plaintiff corporation for the purpose of using the above construction project with the supply and demand of the above construction project, and the defendant is not obliged to pay the above guarantee fee of the above non-party company to the above non-party company in this case as well as the above case's guarantee 2 case of this Act.

(B) The Plaintiff’s right to claim the fee of the instant case against the non-party company has passed three years pursuant to Article 163 of the Civil Code, and the statute of limitations has expired, and accordingly, the Defendant’s right to claim the fee of the instant case has no merit. As such, it is alleged that the claim of the instant case against the non-party company is also groundless, it refers to the claim arising whenever a certain period of time within one year elapses, that is, the claim to be paid at a time within one year, and it does not constitute a short-term extinctive prescription under the above provision. Therefore, it is

3. Accordingly, the defendant, as a guarantor of the above non-party company, is obligated to pay the plaintiff the above rent of KRW 1,393,800 and damages for delay of civil law from January 1, 1971 to the full payment rate of KRW 5% per annum after the date of delay sought by the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and the plaintiff's claim of this case should be accepted. Thus, the judgment dismissing the plaintiff's claim with different conclusions is unfair, and the court below's decision to revoke it and order the performance of its obligation is ordered. The total expenses for the lawsuit shall be borne by the losing party and the provisional execution declaration shall be permitted.

Judges Lee Byung-su (Presiding Judge)